CraigBlog - 1 out of 3 ain't bad...

Thursday, June 26, 2008

I'm a political junky. Everyone knows I love a good political debate. I'm facinated by constitutional law and how the different political groups interpret the constitution and leverage talking points to rope in the electorate. I like following the major issues to the supreme court, because I'm always amazed at how they arrive at their decisions.

Exxon managed to avoid most of the punative damages they had to pay by stringing the appeals so far along, the court finally had enough conservative and moderate leaning conservative judges to rule punative damages can't exceed compensatory damages. Do I agree in concept? Yeah, I guess that makes sense, but I sure hate to see Exxon catching a break. I'm sure they didn't intentionally set out to ruin miles of alaskan coastline and kill so many animals, but that's where negligence comes in. Exxon should probably have just paid it and got it over with. I can't see this is getting them any points in the public arena.

------------

I can't believe they struck down death penalty in cases of child rape because it can't be applied in cases where no death occurred. I have a real problem with the argument primarily because once you give an example of a crime in which there was no death victim but the death penalty is appropriate, you automatically eliminate the argument it can't be used except in the case of murder. Espionage and Treason are crimes against society just like murder, rape, and a host of other ones. If those two are punishable by the death penalty, it automatically provides a precedent for using the penalty as an extreme (but not the norm) for punishment in other crimes. Cruel and unusual can't be a persuasive argument because it's a punishment available in murder cases as well as treason and espionage. It would fall under "cruel and unusual" only if it was particularly torturous or outside the norm. To me, rape fits the bill as cruel and unusual, and probably justifies a harsh (though perfectly legal) punishment. I believe this ruling will increase the amount of vigilante justice from parents seeking remedy.

The real problem with the death penalty in child rape is the definition of child rape. Does it include statutory rape, such as where a 16 year old male has sex with a 15 year old consenting female? Is it more warranted in cases of serial rapists as opposed to "one offs"?

I honestly believe the death penalty should be available for violent crimes, but only applied when the burden of proof meets "beyond a shadow of a doubt" instead of the normal "beyond a reasonble doubt." DNA is proving too many people not guilty to be throwing the death penalty around left and right.

I do find it interesting that both McCain and Obama disagree with this decision. It's rare you find a supreme court case where the answer leaves both parties dissatisfied.

In the absence of strict sentencing guidelines (and let's not forget who our juries are comprised of), keeping the death penalty off-limits is probably a safe move - though they probably should have sent it back to the lower courts to have the sentencing re-examined based on the state's law. In truth, if the death penalty was more available in violent crimes, there'd probably be less of them...which leads me to the last case.

---------------

The only case I felt really good about was the DC v Heller opinion which clarified the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms not just connected to a militia but for self defense and for hunting. Note I didn't say "created" that right. The right to self defense exists along with the right to life. If I have a right to live, then I should have protections to ensure that right is not infringed upon.

I think the most interesting part of the ruling was not the right exists, but the application of the ruling. The summary of the ruling indicates if a person (in DC) isn't otherwise unqualified to own a handgun (within the federal guidelines of mentally ill or a felon), then DC MUST issue a permit. This portion of the ruling is the part that's going to affect the most states and people. Some states have laws called "may issue" laws, in which the local authorities may deny a permit or may issue the permit on their whim. They don't have to find a reason for disqualification, they may just decide to not issue anymore permits this year. Other states (Like the Tarheel State) have "shall issue" laws, where if you're not disqualified (for the reasons listed above) the local authority (the sheriff) has to issue you a permit.

This ruling should effectively place all states into a "shall issue" status, since a qualified person is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a handgun.

My biggest question is: Can I have a machine gun now? Since there was already an opinion that only weapons suitable for use by a militia are protected, and our military (and national guard) trains with machine guns, doesn't that make the machine gun a protected class of weapon?

Politics

Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:27:19 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Comments [0]Trackback

Comments are closed.

On this page....

Categories